The 1986-1991 H-bodies tend to get a lot of hate (although not quite as much as their 1985-1990 C-body cousins). Even as someone with a soft spot for these cars, I totally see where these negative feelings come from. Where their B-body predecessors were big, rear-wheel drive, and had available V8 power, these H-body successors were externally smaller, front-wheel drive, V6-only, and generally less distinctive in appearance. Of course, they were more fuel and space efficient, and more technologically advanced cars in general. Still, to some, these cars could never be viewed as acceptable replacements.

Too bad for them I guess, as the H-bodies, like this 109,000-mile 1990 Oldsmobile Eighty-Eight were very solid cars, that sold even better than their B-body predecessors, breaking the 200,000 mark in their inaugural year, and selling above the 150,000 mark for most of their run. 1990 and 1991 would see a significant dip in sales, as all car sales were down due to the 1990-1991 recession, and Oldsmobile was especially struggling with identity issues.

In light of these figures, the overwhelming majority of Eighty-Eights (officially renamed from “Delta 88” in 1989) sold during this period were sedans. Unlike the more premium Ninety-Eight, whose 2-door coupe models were dropped after 1987, the Eighty-Eight continued to offer this body style until its next redesign. In fact, by 1990, the Eighty-Eight was the last of only four full-size American cars to offer both coupe and sedan bodystyles (the others being its H-body Buick LeSabre sibling, and the related C-body Cadillac DeVille and Fleetwood).

By that point, Eighty-Eight coupe sales were basically nonexistent, as the late-’80s saw the market shift towards sedans. In 1986, coupe production comprised just over 26% of overall Delta 88 output. By 1991, coupe models, at only 692 units, accounted for only 1.23% of overall Eighty-Eight production.

This particular 1990 Eighty-Eight Royale coupe was one of 1,127 produced. An additional 1,585 Eighty-Eight Royale Brougham coupes were produced for 2,712 in total. Given their low collector interest and often many years of loyal service, it’s safe to say that there are not many of this already extremely low number left on the road today.

As this is a 1990, I’m surprised to find manual-crank windows in a full-sizer from a near-luxuryish marque like Oldsmobile. Upon checking the brochure, it appears that power windows were standard in all but one of the eight package specification codes. Needless to say, this is a “bare bones” Eighty-Eight Royale.

Although Eighty-Eights could be fully loaded with options like 55/45 divided bench seats, velour or leather, six-speaker sound system with CD player, anti-lock brakes, and digital instrument cluster with a full complement of gauges, this car was kept simple, staying true to base specification. The extra-cost only option I can detect is the 14-inch simulated wire wheel discs.

A base Eighty-Eight model was hardly a stripper, in the sense that a base Chevrolet would be, however. Cut-pile carpeting, air conditioning, AM/FM stereo with seek/scan, and full-foam custom bench seat with center armrest. Additionally, all Eighty-Eights received rather attractive “Dark Sheffield Gray” interior trim on the dash and door panels. A nice alternative to cheap-looking plastiwood or worse, unadorned monotone plastic.

I’m not a huge fan of the tweed upholstery, as it doesn’t look very comfortable, especially if you were wearing shorts. It reminds me of the uncomfortable ’70s-era chairs in my elementary school library. But, I guess you had to make sacrifices if you wanted to get into a full-size Olds on a budget.

Power was the same on all Eighty-Eights, no matter how generously or sparsely equipped. By 1990, Eighty-Eights were powered by the Buick 3800 “Pre-Series I” LN3 V6. Making 165 horsepower and 210 lb-ft of torque, this engine was a sufficient power plant to haul around the 3,200 lbs. Eighty-Eight. A four-speed automatic was the only transmission available.

Although the Eighty-Eight’s crisp lines were beginning to look dated next to the wave of “aero” cars, it was by all means still a handsome car in 1990. Eighty-Eight sedans lacked the “formal” extreme vertical roofline of the Ninety-Eight, and Eighty-Eight coupes sported an even more rakish roofline for more distinctive and dare I say, sportier looks. For 1990, all Eighty-Eights were treated to a body-color grille, updated taillight clusters, and less chrome trim for a modernized appearance.

Looks aside, there was no denying that the coupe market, especially the large coupe market was virtually dead by the Nineties. 1.23% just wasn’t enough to keep the Eighty-Eight coupe around. An new “aero” Eighty-Eight was waiting in the wings, and I’m sure it was no surprise that there were no coupes when it debuted for 1992.

H-bodies currently aren’t high on collectors’ radar, and I don’t know if they’ll ever be. Given its extremely low production figures though, the Eighty-Eight Royale Coupe is destined to become a future collectible of some sorts, if for nothing else, its rarity. It would be nice to see this one preserved for future generations.

81 Comments

Coupe has a much better roofline comparing to sedan ( every time looking back at the ’80s, the vertical roof is something hard to ignore, along with Lee Iacocca. Even though it’s indeed very space efficient, it looks too ’80s, and it looks more Lee Iacocca with dealer installed vinyl roof, and New Yorker always occurs in my mind. ) Looks like Buick designer was fully aware of this problem. ( or nearly all designers except the one chose a formal treatment over ’90s olds 98 ) and I think the successful Park Avenue played a very important role for Buick in the later years. ( Oldsmobile 88 looks better than LeSabre to me in ’90s but some target could be missed. By this ’80s generation, Oldsmobile was still very popular, Buick… )

I didn’t see the strut bar… My H-Body LeSabre has the tedency to squeak upon nearly full throttle acceleration even with the bar. Maybe it’s better just to tap the gas paddle. I can’t imagine the squeak if with a V8.

Always thought the raked 2-door roofline was so much more attractive than the frumpy 4-door. They are so incredibly rare though, especially the faceifted version. I think I have seen about 3 in my life. Even more rare are LeSabre coupes and the short-lived, super ugly Electra and Ninety-Eight two-doors with the vertical rear windows and wonky proportions (I wonder how many of those they made?)

Michigan was ground zero for H-body sales, specifically the Olds and Buick versions (the Pontiac was not very popular until the 1992 update), and I regularly see 4-doors of this generation today. These early boxy ones are quickly dying out though, being replaced by the 1992-1999 LeSabres/EIght-Eights, another generation that won’t seem to ever die completely despite their saggy suspensions and rusted out rocker panels.

As a little kid these were the quintessential “Generic Old Person” car. They didn’t have the presence and swagger of the bigger RWD GM sedans – also common as dirt in ’90s Michigan – but they always seemed to be owned by much older people than than the typical Lumina/Grand Prix/Cutlass driver. I distinctly remember how totally dated they looked in traffic by the mid-late ’90s despite being well under 10 years old. Next to a Taurus or even a Lumina, I didn’t understand the point besides the conservative styling because they didn’t look any bigger. The 1992 update did a great job of making them much larger and more modern.

I agree that the styling of these cars always makes them look much smaller than they really are. Comparing proportions, this generation Eighty-Eight sedan is actually 5 inches longer and about a inch wider than a 2015 Honda Accord. They sure don’t look that way.

Though I slightly prefer the Buick version, especially in T-Type guise, I’ve always thought these two-doors were a startlingly attractive package. Too bad that the two-door was going out of style at this time. I wish there were more on the streets.

I haven’t seen one of these H-body coupe or non-Cadillac C-body coupes in ages. The last I remember was a green Electra coupe I saw at an auto body place about three years back. This was before I knew about Curbside Classic, but even then I wanted to go back and take pictures of it. Although they wouldn’t have sold well, one has to wonder what 1992-1999 H-body coupes would’ve looked like.

Nice find and article. Count me as a committed H body hater…….I really can’t stand any of these models, though I think you found the best one from a design perspective. The black one pictured in the article is actually fairly attractive.

What a delight to see one of these elusive oddballs. These cars are a rolling collection of contradictions: Full size, yet 3/5 scale. An ancient motor modernized beyond recognition. Crisp, modern styling that belied its inner, and if so equipped, outer Brougham. FWD and a modern suspension set to marshmallow. And built in one of Roger Smith’s temperamental magic factories.

I worked with a funeral director at Kriegshauser Mortuaries in St Louis in the late 80s…his personal car was a 4 door Cutlass Ciera, and his wife had a 2 door Delta 88 like this one…beige with tan velour and wire wheels. Really pretty car, and one of very few I have ever seen. It came from the now-defunct Carlson Oldsmobile in Frontenac MO, which became Huey’s Honda. I don’t know if Huey’s even exists now…

I see that too. I’d say it’s the result of being taken with a phone camera. Although the new cameras on phones are often better than expensive digital cameras of a few years ago, they tend to distort proportions a bit, if taken from a particular angle. I was looking at two pictures I took of my own car, the angle differing probably about only an inch, and in one my car looks stretched much taller than the other picture.

It is probably the effect of the wide angle lense. Look at pictures one and two. The car stands at the same spot but the wheels appear to move. Even the steering angle on the front wheel appears to change.

It’s hard to believe that an upper tier brand like Olds was still using solid bench seats with no recliners in the early 90’s. At the very least this should have come std with a split bench with dual recliners on all models. GM was still in early 80’s thinking on these cars. Despite the seat upholstery looking cheap and uncomfortable I do remember these chairs as being decent. The crap fake cloth that feels like sandpaper on many of today’s cars is much worse and super hard to clean and keep cleaned.

We had a couple of 2 doors in both Buick and Olds versions of these cars many moons ago at our first dealership. I think the Olds version was equipped just like this car except that it had split seats and was silver in color and had alloy wheels instead of wires. It was a nice runner with lots of throttle response and got very good mileage for a car of it’s size at the time.

By the late ’60s, Chrysler was becoming known for fairly common installation of better seating, even in the Plymouth Fury line.

I’ve long shared your thoughts. By about 1971, the 60/40 split bench with the fold down armrest should have become the standard front seating in Oldsmobile and Buick cars. Benches worthy of a Chevy Bel-Air were ridiculous.

It makes you wonder whether GM ever really examined the competitor’s cars – or the cars people were actually buying. Did they know where the market was heading, or were they still locked into early-seventies thinking: “We need this as an update/replacement for that.”?

And – I have to say it – push-button door handles in the nineties? They’re so angular and awkward on an otherwise sleek design. They could have been handled (excuse pun) in a much smoother way. Like on some nineties Buicks, for example.

This car is in amazing shape. Hopefully some one will take care of it.

Only recently I have been daydreaming about adding a late nineties’ Eighty Eight to complement the Pontiac Vibe. They are so understated. They disappear in traffic like camouflage in the forest. Yet, place it in an area with no other cars and the beautiful, graceful styling shines. This is true for this coupe and also for the last Eighty Eight.

And when you have been beat up by a Pontiac Vibe for a while then the marshmallow suspension is nothing but sweet. On top of that these barges get 28 to 30 miles a gallon on the highway. I am dreaming, I think I deserve one.

“They are so understated. They disappear in traffic like camouflage in the forest. Yet, place it in an area with no other cars and the beautiful, graceful styling shines. This is true for this coupe and also for the last Eighty Eight.”

– Nicely said. I couldn’t think of a better way to describe this coupe and the final Eighty-Eight generation.

That interior is so throwback, even for its day. Non split bench and crank windows in a full size coupe? That was about 10 years past it’s time in 1990 and probably 20 years since that was common. I love the thin rimmed, hard plastic steering wheels that Olds, cadillac and Buick had up to that time. Really! Those were on their way out then too, and I miss them.

It is almost a shame that this car does not have the base 14″ wheel covers shown in the brochure. With them, and a full set of white walls, this would be about as close as you could get to the perfect successor to the 1980, 1970, and 1960 full-size coupes in terms of available and reasonably common equipment. The V-6 and FWD being the nods to a more modern era.

“Where their B-body predecessors were big, rear-wheel drive, and had available V8 power, these H-body successors were externally smaller, front-wheel drive, V6-only, and generally less distinctive in appearance”

I think I would take the 86-91 H body over its predecessor B body with the “mighty 307″(Please read the mighty part with the sarcasm that was intended)

I think the hate on these cars was directed on the Cadillac version since it cost twice as much and looked too much like the Buick and Olds C and H bodies.

My grandfather owned a 1979 Buick Lesabre which was totaled in 1987. He bought a slightly used 1986 Buick Park Avenue. He actually liked the 86 PA more then the 1979 Lesabre. As it was more comfortable then the 79. The 3800 was a much more powerful engine then the POS 307 that it replaced in the 1985 B body.

Aside from automotive forums such as this, where a few automotive enthusiasts lyrically wax on for hours extolling the virtues of obsolescent machinery, I don’t think the FWD H & C’s were ever the subject of widespread derision. If anything these cars are a textbook example of how a declining GM could still turn out a stupendous product provided they harnessed their resources effectively.

It’s not hard to see what GM got right. There was a lot of interior space in a smaller, package. The cars handled competently while still delivering a magic carpet ride. With the 3800, they were far quicker and more fuel efficient than any B-body ever produced. And once GM fixed the problems with the 440-T4 transmission and the MAF sensors, they were reliable as the sun.

There is still a generous smattering of these cars on the ground here in the southeast, where rust is not issue, bu they are starting to get thin on the ground. And despite their pleasing proportions, there were never many coupes to begin with. The 90-91 coupes with the refreshed fascias are exceptionally attractive IMO, and despite their broughamy pretenses, they still manage to look lithe and nimble.

I’ll never forget this one ’88 coupe, probably the nicest one I ever saw. Like the subject car, it was a 90 or a 91. It had the 15 inch aluminum wheels, FE3 suspension, and was finished in garnet red metallic with a grey interior, and the faux luggage rack on the rear deck. It looked reasonably sporty and youthful, provided you didn’t peer through the window and gaze at the bench seat and chrome plated column shifter.

I was around a lot of B and C body 88s and 98s, and the transition to the H and FWD C was a rough one for the old owner base. The H & C cars may not have been terrible (except those seat belts!), and may have had some bright points, but the styling left a lot of people cold, the styling details were fussy and tried to ride a line between traditional and modern, the loss of a V-8 rumble was hard to take, the FWD dynamics felt weird.

The result seemed to go three ways:

– The H found a base that stuck with it – people that just couldn’t leave GM. Many of these people were buying their last car.

– People that immediately left the showroom and kept the Mercury Grand Marquis the best selling Mercury for quite a while. The Town Car caught a lot of the upgrade traffic, even the M Body Chrysler Fifth Avenue picked up a few sales.

-People that saw Accords, Camrys and the Taurus getting bigger and nicer during the H’s run and figured they may as well get better quality and more cohesive styling along with their modern FWD sedan.

The LeSabre always had decent sales, but its march toward last man standing status had something to do with that.

Actually the V6 was called a 3.8, as the 3800 was the 1991 upgraded version of the 3.8 V6. Horse power increased to 170. My 86 Electra T-type (rated at 140-150 HP) generally gave me around 28 MPG on long trips. The ride was firm, not cushy like the Park Avenue. The 91 models also got electronic transmission controls which made a huge difference in shift quality.

According to Wiki you are correct, the engine I was thinking of was call the series 1 with 170 hp. The 3800 must have gotten the 165 hp rating in 1988. I have always thought with the money spent on revisions to the old V6 that they could have designed a better 60 degree V6 to replace it.

Great find–I really, really love these coupes, and their LeSabre counterparts. The steep angle of the C-pillar gives them an almost sporty air, yet without losing the understated elegance of the rest of the design. Such a contrast against the Ninety Eight and Electra coupes, with their vertical backlights and ungainly rectangular quarter windows. Those were the geese of the lineup and these coupes were the swans. I also like the horizontal-emphasis dashboard–simple and clean.

While the ultimate example of an H-body coupe would have to be a LeSabre Grand National (quite rare) or T-Type, a ’90 or ’91 Eighty Eight would be very nice indeed. I’d prefer a brougham with alloys, but even with the wire discs, odd upholstery and manual windows, this one looks like a well cared-for example worthy of preservation. Was it for sale, or did you just happen to encounter it?

Found it. Auction closed with no bids. Starting price was $4500, which seems rather steep. I’ve always had a soft spot for these, as a like big coupes (and I cannot lie), but it is a 25 year old car with over 100k, and it’s neat but not collectible.

There seemed to have been about as much interest in launching an exciting new full size car during this era, as there is today with launching a new hybrid car. Very little.

Auto manufacturers were convinced that full size cars like they had been building for way too long without incremental improvements in handling or performance, were history. Yet, the market was still large enough to do something and each approached with varying degrees of disinterest.

GM decided to take all the parts they had in been using in smaller cars, and reuse them to save money. Then instead of putting traditional V8 power under those car’s hoods, put a big 6. And – when it came to replacing the Brougham era, well – they didn’t know what to do at all. They sadly looked to the Toyota Camry for inspiration, and then put out cars with about as much interest and styling as a Camry – none. That didn’t work.

On the other hand, somehow someone convinced enough people to make a cheap Caprice/Roadmaster/Ninety-Eight atrocity with Packard bathtub styling and thought old people would be thrilled. However, these cars completely failed to recreate the quality or heft of the older full sized cars, which were priced thousands beyond what they appeared to be worth. That didn’t work either.

Ford thought it correctly read the writing on the wall regarding the full sized car’s obituary and put a new sedan body on the old Panther chassis. Instead of launching an ugly bathtub sedan, Ford decided to make the Crown Victoria look like a cross between a Taurus, a Thunderbird and an LTD. No grille in front, an aerodynamic roofline across the back and very little update in the engineering, except for their police sedans. For a long time, that didn’t work either.

The American car market was convinced that cars that seated more than four adults were history. If you had more than two kids, you were expected to drive a minivan, and millions of new parents were. There was a belief that if you still wanted a full size car, you were older than a Boomer and boring. Hence GM decided to try and sell you a boring full size car with front wheel drive, a six cylinder and pitiful Camry styling. Ford decided to put a new body on their old rear drive Panther, and Chrysler was still peddling their old Volare/Aspen based brougham sedans, the Fifth Avenue.

The idea that there would be a generation after the Boomers who knew how to fill a house with kids, will need a big vehicle to carry them all in, and wouldn’t want a minivan was still in the future.

The SUV boom during the late 1990s was partly the result of no longer making big traditional rear-drive sedans and wagons. Even today, having more than two kids narrows vehicular choices substantially since each infant now requires federally mandated adult-size seat accommodations.

Ford and Chrysler got lucky. The Panther ended up succeeding later in the design life cycle. Ford ended up making a really good rear drive full size car well beyond what they initially imagined back when the 1979 car was first launched. Chrysler’s LH sedans kept their full size market customers contented until the new rear drive Chrysler 300 showed up in 2005, leapfrogging both Ford and GM with a modern take on the traditional American full size sedan.

GM goosed their front wheel drive full size cars as long as they could, but they couldn’t save Oldsmobile or Pontiac or even Buick. (Today Buick sells four times its American sales total in China, so it was China that saved Buick.) Being uninspired ended up muting these cars. It seemed that no one wanted GM to make a big boring Camry after all.

I had a 1986 LeSabre Limited. I always had issues with the upright 4 door roof line. I think this 88 coupe is much more attractive. It’s surprising to see such a bare bones Olds 88. If my Dad had been in the market for an Olds 88 of this vintage, he would have been drawn more to it by it’s lack of amenities than anything else, save the V6 and FWD. I agree with Jason about the tires and wheels. I’ll take the black one with the turbine wheel, please. I like it! The Olds 88 had a fifty year run. I don’t know of another name plate that can say the same.

Ford F-Series, absolutely. But I don’t consider Mustang to have had a fifty year run. IMO, the Mustang II was no Mustang. Just like the LTD II was no LTD. It was a dolled up Fairmont. Corolla, fifty? Boy, do I feel old.

I had the Buick coupe sister (’87 LeSabre) of this car for a 4 month company car.

I recall it being a most pleasant (for the time period) driving car, plenty peppy in city traffic & a silent high speed highway cruiser, c-c-cold factory air conditioning (SO needed in the Heat & Humidity sink hole of New Orleans!), smooth shifting transmission, very roomy interior.

I did find my later model Mercury Grand Marquis a quieter, softer riding, quicker car with just as good (if not better) handling.

As I only had it a short period of time, from brand new, I cannot comment on it’s long term reliability.

Would love this car with FE3 suspension package, touring tires, and a light tint on the windows. No one would know how bare bones it was until they opened the doors.

I believe if the 3800 did finally give up the ghost one of the newer more powerful versions of the engine (with the updated transmission) would be a direct replacement. One of these 1st gen H-bodys with 200+ hp would be a great sleeper with the light 3200lb weight.

I was loaned one of these when our 1986 Ford Taurus was in for repair after a minor fender-bender. It was a throwback to the days of floating suspensions and soft, flabby seats. It was bigger inside than the Taurus but time-machine like, felt like it was
1979 again.

I think enough demand existed for an H-body Impala slotted above the Celebrity and below the Caprice/Caprice Classic. Olds and Buick pulled that off successfully deep into the 90s with A, H, and C products in their lineup. Why not Chevy? And I never viewed the Celebrity and Lumina credible replacements for the B body anyway, just like I never viewed the Taurus a replacement for the LTD/Crown Victoria.

Well, my opinion may be based on the appearance alone – I’m not familiar with this generation of 88s first-hand – but still I like this car, specifically in the coupe form (the sedan is quite ugly, IMHO). Maybe it just reminds me of another large US-market coupe from the same era towards which I still have warm feelings – an ’87 Acura Legend, which happened to be such a revelation to me.

It’s large, but not too large. Looks reasonably sporty, but not too sporty as many cars of the era did, with reasonably long, not too sloping hood, relatively long and not overly high rear deck – the “right” proportions to me. It still has a reasonable amount of chrome trim without looking like a Christmas tree. The interior seems to be as roomy as you’d find in a mid-60s full-size car, plush enough without too much Brougham, and has a real bench seat and a column shifter, just like any stereotypical American car should (surely would’ve been better with all-velour upholstery instead of these inserts of cheap cloth). The engine is relatively large but, again, not too large. Guess all that wasn’t enough for it to sell well, though, and the era of large coupes war really coming to its end.

Even its simplicity as a bare-bones model has a certain charm. All in all, it looks like a perfect 1980s equivalent of mid-1960s stripper 2-door sedans, which were always strangely attractive to me.

Ahhhh. I’d drive the hell out of this.The only things that would annoy me are lack of airbags and those seatbelts. After having window motors go out in a few cars, the crank windows are a-ok. Even the blue tweed is kind of cute, much better than the dark gray that comes in EVERY SINGLE CAR right now.

I dated a girl who had one just like this, including the color, but leather seats. She bought it used with high miles. She hated it. I told her she was nuts, its a very impressive car, especially the engine. I loved driving that car. She traded it in on a Saturn coupe. I told her that was a dumb move, especially since she already owed more than the 88 was worth due to too frequent car purchases already. Now she had a little crappy car with a loan twice what it was worth. But it was stylish and “cute” and that’s what mattered to her.

I’m stunned by how many people, especially young women, do this. A few years ago, I had an employee who was driving a Hyundai Accent with a, get this, $20,000 loan on it. The reason, you may ask? Well, she’d leased a Hyundai SUV and then wanted rid of it because it was hard on fuel. She ended up eating $5000 on the SUV, and Hyundai wouldn’t lease to her again, so $15,000 got tacked on. She said she didn’t care because at $450 a month, the payment was still cheaper! Never mind it was three extra years. Dumb girl. And lazy, too, so I fired her. She the drove her beat up Accent to the dealership and tossed them the keys. She was then even so stupid, she didn’t declare bankruptcy.

And only the greybeards among us remember when “Executive” meant “top of the line”.
Reminds me when Australian Motor Industries (Rambler, Triumph, Toyota) in the mid-sixties produced a top-line Triumph 2000 called the MD. Supposed to stand for “Managing Director”. Of course us schoolkids said it meant “Mentally Deficient”. Strangely that model didn’t last long!
Imagine a car company these days calling their top model the CEO.

Hate for the 86-91 ‘H” bodies/… I don’t understand. I love these cars, They are a great expression of the long ,low, linear look. Much better than the ubiquitous ‘Jelly bean” styling of many contemporary vehicles. Maybe I am biased as I have two “H” bodies in my personal fleet. First was a 91 Buick LeSabre Custom 4dr sedan I inherited. it was the last car my father had driven, purchased new in late 1990. He was a stickler for paperwork and recrds, so the car has a lot of provenance. 2nd is a 1987 Buick LeSabre T-Type 2 dr coupe, sharing the roofline and much of it’s style with the Olds, pictured. Both are good dependable, nicely styled cars and a lot of folks say so. Will they ever be “collectible” Hard to say, there is a following, already, particularly for the T-Type of which less than 16K were built over 3 years, 1987, 88, and 89. The 3800 v6 is a strong motor and good for more than 200k if just simply maintained. Hate? I don’t think so.

Not long after the H-Body Olds 88 (and Buick LeSabre) were introduced. Oldsmobile sales started nosediving. The main factors of Oldsmobile’s decreased sales were the increasing popularity of the Toyota Camry/Honda Accord along with the revolutionary Ford Taurus. Also the downsized Toronado (which looks a lot like an N-body Calais) was a sales dud. Compared to the Taurus, the Oldsmobile product line looked stale. The “This is not your father’s Oldsmobile” ad campaign for the 1988 Cutlass Supreme was the kiss of death moment for Oldsmobile. During that time frame, the most popular Oldsmobile (all the way through 1996) was the Cutlass Ciera. And it was mostly the AARP crowd that bought Oldsmobiles in the late 80s and much of the 90s. Chevrolet was wise to continue production of the rear-drive V8 powered Caprice Classic sedan (even introducing a Brougham version) when the H-bodies came out. And the big station wagons (Buick LeSabre/Electra Estate and Olds Custom Cruiser) continued on the RWD B-body chassis for several more years (Olds until 1992, Buick until 1996).

These cars in the coupe version were always a cool sight because they were so rare. There was an elderly woman that just up until about a year ago had a white one with blue interior roaming around my neighborhood. I haven’t seen her or her Delta 88 for some time, so I’m thinking she either stopped driving altogether or she may have passed away. Either way, whenever I saw her in that car it made me smile. She had an American flag always blowing in the wind from her rear antenna. It had its share of scrapes and bruises, but that car seemed to soldier on for what seems like forever!

My parents were Oldsmobile loyalists, so they replaced their 1982 Delta 88 Royale sedan with a 1988 Delta 88 Royale Brougham sedan. I remember being pleasantly surprised at how quickly and smoothly the car accelerated. It was a real improvement over the 1982 model. Unfortunately, it was also noisier, and minor build quality issues plagued the car. It took several trips to the dealer to get them corrected.

The coupe version of the Delta 88 was really handsome – of the few downsized GM big cars that could be described as good-looking without any qualifications. The real problem was that, by this point, the market for large two-doors had just about evaporated. I don’t recall seeing many of these when they were new.

My parents traded their 1988 Delta 88 for the revamped 1992 Delta 88, which was a big improvement over the earlier car in every way. The coupe version was gone by then, but, by that point, most buyers didn’t care.

The coupe was SO much more attractive than the sedan on these! I liked the C-body sedans with the extreme formal roofline, but the roofline on the sedan H models looked awkward, like it couldn’t decide whether to be a formal roof or not, and tried to split the difference between upright and slanted. Worst of all was the Bonneville, with a Taurus-inspired, rounded lower body and the boxy roof. Still, these were good cars IMO, in any bodystyle. The Delta 88 and LeSabre coupes were very good-looking. I always liked the previous RWD cars (and my family owned them) but I thought this was a great follow-up. I know I’m kinda in the minority on that!

There’s still a smattering of these around Oakland (and I saw an ’86 one when I was in Portland in that weird “Cadillac Creme” Yellow when I was there in December).

I obviously love these (as perhaps the first defendant of the H-bodies here on CC), I have to say an FE-3 equipped late model of these is still one of my top 5 cars to actually live with. They really did iron out the kinks by the end of the run, and you could really flog them to death with minor maintenance.

I remembered recently when my dad brought his ’95 88, that my Uncle Albert took his for a test drive after he bought it, and compared it to his beloved ’84 Ninety Eight. He was pretty impressed at how lively, fling-able yet solid it was in comparison to the B-Body. But…. then he bought a Mitsubishi Diamante so he wouldn’t be a copycat of his little brother.

If ever a higher trim level one of these came along (the 90-91s with the less brougham-y seats) I’d buy one in a heartbeat.

I knew these were not common, but I had no idea that production was so low. Maybe they all wound up in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. I think DaveB pegged it – the only folks who bought these were GM lifers. However, that was still a lot of people in those years, especially in the midwest. But I don’t think these picked up many new customers.

I preferred the looks of these to their successor model. A brother had the Buick version of this car (but a 4 door), right down to the color.

Love these downsized GM cars. The best looking, IMHO, are the Electra/Park Avenue and the Olds 98 4 door sedans. Next would be the LeSabre coupe and the Delta 88 coupe. I prefer all these to the similar Caddy models.

The 4 door version of the LeSabre and Delta 88 and the coupe version of the 98 looked weird due to their roof lines. I think the reason the 98 coupe looked weird was due to the vinyl landau roof. It made the back windows look like old tube style TV screens. The Electra/Park Ave coupe didn’t look so bad with the sleek metal roof and gigantic back windows.

I also thought the Buicks pulled the front and rear styling off better by using nicer grills, and nicer tail lamp designs. Of course Buick went a bit exotic with the front hinged hood. When the hood was opened it looked way cool.

While the body style is fairly clean (it could have done with small side moldings) and it is a coupe, FWD is just not a good thing to me. It has several handling disadvantages, at least to a skilled experienced driver. It is hard to work on, most of the time the engine cannot be pulled out the top, you have to put the car up on a hydraulic lift and drop it out the bottom. That is a big deal to a home mechanic. I just see it as a cost cutting measure. I also have an issue with car companies using iconic names that have a long history as RWD cars, and putting it on a FWD car. When I think of a Malibu, I imagine a sweet looking RWD coupe, not the FWD POS sitting in my driveway. I remember back in ’87, the year I bought my new Fiero, being absolutely furious with GM for putting the Nova name on a slightly restyled FWD Toyota Corolla.

Love these fastback coupes. Don’t love the two door sedans. The four doors are okay looking also. If only they could have built a coherently styled Cadillac version. Until then the Le Sabre T type coupe is the top of the heap.

I see the Buick version of this car nearly every day on my walk around the neighborhood. A darn nice looking old car by any definition. I’d happily drive one, and I’m certainly not enthusiastic about American cars of this era.

One thing I never understood about these, or any of the other “downsized” cars of this time period, is all the hate about the front wheel drive.. Who on earth cares if it’s front wheel drive or not?? It’s no drivers car, you’re not going to be tearing up a racetrack or curvy mountain roads in it! If it makes the car more efficient and roomy inside, that’s a good thing!! Isn’t that the whole point of cars like this? To be comfortable?

Not trying to rant haha, I just never understood why non-performance cars being FWD is such a big deal to some people.

Hate might be a strong word, but at the time I did prefer RWD. FWD cars behave very differently on snow or ice. Not saying that either one are better or worse, but if you are used to one, the switch takes some adjustment.

front engine, rear drive is the most durable most robust, most adaptable, and most repairable configuration ever devised. To a mechanic, front wheel drive is junk. Like comparing a ranch home to a split level.

I’ve always liked these and the corresponding LeSabre coupes, but I would definitely go for a 1986-89 model to avoid those horrible door-mounted belts, which don’t fit as well as the regular kind, can’t possibly be as safe, and positively scream “We’re too cheap here at GM to re-engineer these cars for air bags.” The theory was that you were supposed to leave them buckled and limbo into the car underneath them, making them technically “passive restraints.” The next person I see using them that way will be the first.

For some reason, when I was a kid, I associated these cars (and similar models) as the type of cars old ladies, pastors, librarians and bank tellers would drive. Graying hair (if not gray all the way) and eyeglasses resting on the nose. The prim and proper types in society. I think my association is somewhat correct.

To me, the GM platform/brand strategy of this era looks to be a somewhat more confusing than the K-car mess, but then again I don’t know GM/Ford platforms nearly as well as Chrysler. Can that be untangled?